This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Adjust `pc-fp.exp' for ppc64/s390x (PR 12659)
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:50 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adjust `pc-fp.exp' for ppc64/s390x (PR 12659)
- References: <m3mx2fmxmb.fsf@redhat.com>
On 07/31/2012 10:25 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> While regtesting 7.4 against 7.5 branch on ppc64/s390x RHEL 6.3, I
> noticed this failure. The patch which introduced this failure was
> committed because of:
>
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12659
>
> On x86*, the output of `info register pc fp' is:
>
> info register pc fp
> pc: 0x400520
> fp: 0x7fffffffc490
> (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/pc-fp.exp: info register pc fp
>
> On ppc64/s390x, it is:
>
> info register pc fp
> pc 0x10000658 0x10000658 <main+20>
> fp: 0xfffffffd120
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/pc-fp.exp: info register pc fp
>
> Since this difference in the output does not seem to be an error itself,
> the patch below just adjusts the testcase to match this kind of output
> as well. It does not fail on x86*.
Why is the output format different? It looks like consistency here would be good.
On 07/31/2012 10:25 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:> --- src.orig/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pc-fp.exp
> +++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pc-fp.exp
> @@ -66,4 +66,4 @@ gdb_test "info register \$fp" "${valueof
> # Regression test for
> # http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12659
> gdb_test "info register pc fp" \
> - "pc: ${valueof_pc}\[\r\n\]+fp: ${valueof_fp}\[\r\n\]+"
> + "pc(:)?.*${valueof_pc}(.*${hex} <.*>)?\[\r\n\]+fp: ${valueof_fp}\[\r\n\]+"
Relaxing the output like that means that inadvertent changes to x86's
or ppc/s390x output might go unnoticed. It's best to have
if [istarget xxx]
one way
elseif [istarget yyy]
another way
etc. checks in these cases.
--
Pedro Alves